Harvey Wallbanger

Have you read the judgment Ollie? Didn't think so. Those members that attended (all four days) said they were ashamed of their Club

Jaded - I think you missed the bit "I loved the flag". Let's not compare my love to your love of this club. This is the Training Ground thread.

I'm sorry but I think what I read here is that we can be saved by spin. The reality is we have a poor Board (appalling decision-making), and a poor CEO, and nobody can spin us out of that. We, the members need to change our governance. It can be done. The reviews were going to be "internal", and run by the CEO, right up until the fateful interview by our former President. It was the members that turned it "external", not the spin doctors. Long live the members. You have the power! Because these reviews are not external, they are not independent - clearly just the CEO trying to save his job. Look up (the Board), look down (the Football Department), but don't look in the mirror.

Works OK when everyone is in a hub. And we have to wait for the Bulldogs to quarantine. I loved the flag, but when the situation returns to normal.....

Can we expect "Results of feasibility study concludes that someone spending lots of money constructing two football ovals inside the racecourse and a home base on the outside of the track is consistent with the master plan of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust"? Months later than promised. MFC can now release its Strategic Plan to its members......construction of our home base commences on....? Any prospect of the Club being in the MCG precinct officially pronounced dead.

Well said Kent and Speed said - "Gerard I took a look at the website last night and they seem like a very capable lot." A quick desk audit by Malcolm, knowing he was on air the next day. Let the members decide later this year (or earlier?) how they are doing as a collegiate body. Only one of them up for re-election unfortunately. But Robb and Roffey need to be replaced......will casual vacancies be filled before 1 October?

And while you are reading it Ollie take a look at para 143. The judge said: "He (Lawrence) says, for example, that candidates seeking election to the board should be free to give media interviews and use and have unrestricted access to websites and social media that can be viewed by the general public. And those views are not unreasonable. But, as the cases make clear, it is not the court’s role in oppression cases to be an arbiter of competing views about such matters." So I reckon the judge quite likes free and open elections but he concluded that it wasn't his job to overrule the Club on this final point.

When exactly should he have "quit while he was ahead". The Board was changing election rules in the middle of the hearing (the judge actually adjourned the proceeding to allow that to happen) and made another amendment after the case closed. I suggest you read the judgment Ollie. The judge said: The hearing of the proceeding was somewhat of a “moveable feast”, because further amendments were made to the rules during, and after, the trial, which had the effect of further narrowing the matters about which Mr Lawrence complained.

I reckon you listened to a different interview to the rest of us....(on cue?)

The Chair of the Audit, Risk and Integrity Committee is up for re-election this year.

Don't think so. In the Whateley interview, Kate was emphatic that there was no external review required, and she mentioned the All Black involvement during the season. Can't know for certain of course, but I reckon Mr Shand got a quick call soon afterwards when the Board eventually accepted the obvious point that an internal review would not cut it.....

Lachie Whitfield.

In the nicest possible way he was saying it was "debateable" as to whether Pert should be involved in the Footy Department review......

OK, I'll try to be a little more perceptive - "I want to make a comment about the CEO, could he please leave the room?"

Perhaps Brad did ask some tough questions about the Footy Department this year but was told by the CEO to stay away from that area - you're a Board member, not on the executive. But now he's the President....he has a bit more authority? And re your first line let me just check how this works - a player from the senior leadership group enters a room and sits down with Mr Shand, Mr Green and Mr Pert and then declares that he has a problem with Mr Pert?

Thank goodness we now have term limits (since 2022).

You might say Essendon haven't benefited from it yet, but their recent review involved Brendan McCartney, Jordan Lewis with EY coordinating it. So players and staff could respond openly in their interviews to respected external AFL folk. That's an external review.

They can. But when I listened in on the case I heard our Vice President give evidence that appointing casual vacancies immediately before elections wasn't looked upon favourably by members - it was perceived by members to give those appointees an unfair advantage. That is why the rule was changed. Having said all that, there is still nothing I can see on our website which shows what election rules are effective right now?

As a result of Mr Lawrence's efforts Ollie, guess what: 1. This year you will get an email from the Club advising you in advance of when nominations open - no need to subscribe to the Herald Sun and scour the classifieds. You can even nominate for the Board (there are spots up for grabs) - still have to find 20 endorsees though. 2. And after 1 October the Board cannot insert their preferred candidates onto the Board giving them an incumbency advantage going into the election. 3. If you make it to your 30 minute session with the Candidate Assessment Committee you wont be sitting opposite a majority of Board members. 4. And finally - you still can't "campaign" of course (no media circus you understand) but you can obtain a copy of the Members' Register and put your case directly to other members.

Not sure what sort of "chips" you are referring to Skuit. Deemocracy has been banging away on proper governance for four years. I have read the judgment. You're not quite right about "one primary issue". You may be interested to know that the judge was forced to adjourn the hearing mid-stream (with very much a nudge nudge wink wink) to allow the Board to go away and hold a Board meeting to remove a provision in the Election Rules that prohibited Board candidates from accessing the register of members so as to communicate with other members. This provision clearly contravened the Corporations Act and the Supreme Court case Lawrence won in 2022. I get your point about the Club wanting to avoid media circuses (they're doing a good job in that regard, right?) but a Board which adopts a rule prohibiting members from communicating with other members when a Board election is on tells you everything you need to know about their true objectives. It seems Lawrence wanted members to be able to talk to members - no media circus there. Do you really believe we would have ended up with anything approaching reasonable election processes without the case running its full course? Effectively the judge stared the Club down and between Days 2 and 3 of the trial (11 days) the Board scuttled away to "fix up their rules").

Your confusion comes from the fact that the Club has said nothing officially.....

Fair comments, but if Darren was of such a high calibre, and had spent a week at the Club, why is it only now that his involvement emerges - was Kate the impediment to an external review, as per the Whateley interview? (BTW still no confirmation of anything from our Club about it?). Are they just flying a kite?

Nice post. According to Jay Clark, Darren Shand already spent a week at the Club earlier in the season (Kate referred to this in the her fateful interview), so one could say he is "already on the payroll". His hasty inclusion in the process allows the Club to use the word "external" when it patently isn't. Reminds me of the Candidate Assessment process the Board used where candidates were interviewed by a majority of existing directors, with an executive recruitment specialist rubber-stamping the conclusions. That's played out well as Brad said, re the Board, will "be honest with each other about where we have succeeded and where we could have done better".

So nothing external when it comes to reviewing the Board or the admin?

If there is a review it has to be "top to bottom" as Whateley suggested to Kate. Nothing official from the Club yet. If it's happening, kudos to Deemocracy I reckon.